Joseph Gunderson - October 18, 2021 at 01:13PM
There's a growing trend in leftist circles these days, and I'm sure all our readers have noticed it, and it is the growing disdain for not only law enforcement but for our military. And just like our law enforcement officers, it has become common practice to level charges of white supremacy against our men and women in uniform. What's more, a piece by Cynthia Miller-Idriss, an opinion columnist for MSNBC, argues that extremism has grown within the military, and veterans are now increasingly responsible for terrorist plots and attacks.
While I agree that extremism is slithering its way into the military, I disagree as to its nature. Let's look at this a little closer.
Miller-Idriss cites a study published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies titled, "Violent Domestic Extremist Groups and the Recruitment of Veterans", which purports to demonstrate just how extremism has managed to grow in the military and veteran communities. What's interesting about this report is that it fails, in epic fashion, to provide a complete view of the issue—and I think we know why.
The report starts by providing what it calls "historical trends", and proceeds to list off several examples of veterans demonstrating white supremacy, most of which are from the 1970s, meaning these individuals would have grown up prior to the Civil Rights movement, when racism was ubiquitous. They also add to the list a veteran linked to Ruby Ridge in '92 and, of course, Timothy McVeigh.
A list of lesser-known extremists follows. But it's curious: this list is cited from a 2020 book by none other than the writer of the opinion piece, Cynthia Miller-Idriss. In a Princeton University Press overview, it states,
"Hate crimes. Misinformation and conspiracy theories. Foiled white-supremacist plots. The signs of growing far-right extremism are all around us, and communities across America and around the globe are struggling to understand how so many people are being radicalized and why they are increasingly attracted to violent movements. Hate in the Homeland shows how tomorrow's far-right nationalists are being recruited in surprising places, from college campuses and mixed martial arts gyms to clothing stores, online gaming chat rooms, and YouTube cooking channels."
Forgive me if it's a little difficult to take seriously any book published in 2020 written on the subject of extremism. Even the overview shows Miller-Idriss scraping the bottom of the barrel for examples.
In detailing more contemporary instances of terrorism enacted by service members and veterans, the study also fails to provide enough real-world examples to justify their claims. They list seven, and there are issues even with those. The Daniel Perry case cited involved the shooting of an armed protestor who was blocking the road and banging on Perry's vehicle. Though Perry has been charged with murder, he maintains the shooting was in self-defense, and regardless, this could hardly be called terrorism.
They also cite the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, but we know that this entire thing was a farce, which included almost as many FBI agents egging the entire thing on as there were members of the supposed militia. And, of course, no list of extremist terrorists would be complete without January 6, where the report states that "at least 66 veterans—along with reservists, a member of the National Guard" and several members of militias and extremist organizations were present. It's strange that a group of terrorists so large would fail to see a single one of them charged as such. I mean, this is as ridiculous as it is lazy.
But the politics really come to light when one examines figure three of the report. In a graph that illustrates the domestic terror attacks in 2020 by group and against what group the attack was aimed, one finds a noticeable lack of far-left terrorism—obviously ignoring all of the violent riots and legitimate secessionist activities perpetrated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa radicals over the past few years. Now, this figure is related to the overall scope of the report only insofar as it depicts the total number of terrorist attacks, but it does provide some context as to what the researchers actually deem to be terrorist attacks and, by extension, extremism.
But Miller-Idriss doesn't stop at just citing the awfully lazy and obviously skewed report. No, she also cites a brief testimony by Jeremy Butler, the Chief Executive Officer of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in which he states that a recent survey showed "3 in 10 survey participants reported personally witnessing extremism in the military ranks". But then, from what definition of extremism are these participants working? It doesn't say. And seeing as how the word has been used to describe anything from a Republican voter to concerned parents leaves such a thing wide open, doesn't it?
But the message from Cynthia Miller-Idriss is pretty easy to parse out, is it not? The military is considered overwhelmingly right-leaning, so it becomes politically advantageous to start labeling the group rife with extremism and poised to commit acts of terrorism. This seems par for the course for leftists. But there is a huge problem with this examination. Obviously, Miller-Idriss and the hacks who published the study would like readers to focus on the radical right, those dastardly extremists infecting the military, planning to overthrow the government. But they fail, in a purposeful fashion, to identify the real extremism: radical leftism.
Again, this is par for the course, as the media provides cover for leftist extremists while ranting and raving about supposed right-wing radicalism. But if recent history has proven anything, it is that leftism is a far more prevalent and pernicious ideology in the military, and what's more, it is acceptable. Who could forget our little commie cadet, who felt so comfortable voicing his support for the murderous ideology that he stood around his fellow West Point cadets, brandishing the phrase "Communism will win" written inside his wheel cap. Of course, he broke the cardinal rule of the subversive's playbook: don't say the quiet part aloud; and the higher-ups couldn't let this kid out them as leftist hacks by letting him remain in uniform.
But we know the military is full of leftist hacks. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley endorses reading the work of Ibram Kendi, one of the exalted priests of critical race theory. And both the Air Force Academy and West Point teach critical race theory as part of their curricula. And this is the root of the leftist extremism issue in our military.
Let me let you civilians in on a few things you may not know about the military (or at least the army, as it was the branch in which I served).
To be an officer in the army, one must have a college degree under their belt. One may find extremely rare examples to the contrary—such as battlefield promotions, which were far more common during the world wars and further back—but this is a rather hard rule. That means that every officer coming into the military must first pass through the very same indoctrination mills as every leftist activist we see trolling the streets in Che Guevara t-shirts. This means they have already been brainwashed or, at least, primed to receive further messaging once they put on the uniform. Furthermore, officers often require more education to receive promotions. I have yet to meet a lieutenant colonel who didn't have a master's, and this only continues their fall into leftism.
For noncommissioned officers and junior enlisted soldiers, promotion requires evaluations, which are ultimately approved by, you guessed it, the officers. The higher in the enlisted ranks one gets, the higher ranking the officer who must approve of the evaluation. And if you don't believe an officer would hold politics against an enlisted man, you are terribly mistaken. Almost anything can be used to lower the score on an evaluation, so long as it can be somehow justified. This is especially true now, when just being a right-leaning voter can be used as an excuse for making someone uncomfortable or fear for their life. So, if the enlisted guys and gals want a career in the military, they will toe whatever line the officers want.
The members of the military swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but that doesn't prevent them from being taken in by certain ideas. And as a similar oath has been increasingly violated by politicians, one might argue that there's nothing stopping the same from occurring in the military. I agree with Miller-Idriss that extremism may very well be an issue in the military. But it's not right-wing. It's not white supremacy (which is a monster gasping its last dying breathes in America anyway). It's leftism. It's the radical Marxist ideologies poisoning leadership, as brilliantly described in the book by Matthew Lohmeier, Irresistible RevolutionIrresistible Revolution. I recommend everyone read it.
One must identify a problem before it can be fixed. But the media refuses to identify this problem correctly because they don't desire to fix it. They want the extremists of the left to control everything, especially the military. It just makes their takeover of this country easier.
Get your content free from Big Tech's filter. Bookmark this website and sign up for our newsletter!
from Steven Crowder Says
